Keran, Jr. v. Smith et al
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION isued re 11 Amended Complaint in that the May 3, 2021 Report and Recommendation is VACATED. However, for the reasons stated above and in the May 3, 2021 Report and Recommendation, the undersigned continues to R ECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS this action pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Objections to R&R due by 7/29/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 7/15/21. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
LESTER V. KERAN, JR.,
Civil Action 2:21-cv-1943
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
ANNETTE C. SMITH, DIRECTOR, et al.,
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11).
Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his Complaint to address the deficiencies identified in the
undersigned’s May 3, 2021 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4), which found that Plaintiff
(1) failed to allege personal involvement by any of the named Defendants; but that even if
Plaintiff had done so, he still (2) failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim based on
Defendants’ failure to provide sufficient training on various sheet metal shop machinery, because
Plaintiff did not allege that he was required to work in the metal shop or otherwise forced to
endure unsafe conditions; and (3) failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on the
loss of his job in the sheet metal shop, because prisoners have no constitutionally right to prison
employment or to a particular prison job. (R. & R. 6–10, ECF No. 4.)
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint addresses the first deficiency by making allegations of
personal involvement by each of the named Defendants. (Am. Compl., passim, ECF No. 11.)
However, the Amended Complaint still suffers from the second and third deficiencies.
Accordingly, in light of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the May 3, 2021 Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is VACATED. However, for the reasons stated above and in the
May 3, 2021 Report and Recommendation, the undersigned continues to RECOMMEND that
the Court DISMISS this action pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?